Voit, M.

Do dialogue journals with recasts improve the writing skills for adult learners
with limited literacy skills? (2009)
This study examines dialogue journaling with low-literacy adult English language
learners and looks for statistical improvements in specific grammatical morphemes.
General instructor responses and recasts were also explored. Key influences included
current and past students, educational colleagues and experts in the field (Peyton, Staton,
Reed and Jones). The study analyzed dialogue journal entries for a 3-month period, with
adult low-literacy English language learners in a community education class. Using
general responses and recasts, the author responded to the entries and looked for
improvements in specific grammatical morphemes. Additionally, a pre-test, questionnaire
(before and after study) and post-test were used to determine the results. For this time
period, the response method did not make a difference in improvement, and the actual use
of the grammatical morphemes did not seem to improve statistically. However, there
were many other benefits including participant confidence and a closer community
atmosphere within the classroom.

DO DIALOGUE JOURNALS WITH RECASTS IMPROVE THE WRITING SKILLS

FOR ADULT LEARNERS WITH LIMITED LITERACY SKILLS?

By
Michelle Henry Voit

A capstone submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the

degree of Master of Arts in ESL.
Hamline University
Saint Paul, Minnesota
February, 2009

Primary Advisor: Betsy Parrish

Secondary Advisor: Julia Reimer
Peer Reviewer: Julie Athman

To my daughters Megan, Rachel and Ella, may you never give up and never stop
learning.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

Writing Practice Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Dialogue Journaling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Responding to Student Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
The Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Significance for Others . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Student Educational Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
What are Dialogue Journals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Vygotskys Theory of Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Benefits of Dialogue Journals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Issues Regarding Dialogue Journals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Dialogue Journal Studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Responding to Student Writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .32
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Research Paradigm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Educational Setting and Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Research Procedures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

iii

Pre-Testing and Survey Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45

Dialogue Journaling Statistics and Graphs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Impressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
Limitations of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Positive Outcomes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
Implications for Further Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Final Thoughts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
Appendix A: Pre-test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Appendix B: Tell me about your writing Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Appendix C: Background Information Questionnaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
Appendix D: Post-test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84

iv

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES

Table 3.1 Participant Information . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

Table 4.1 Individual Scores for Use of Four Morphemes (Pre-test) . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Table 4.2 Tell me about your writing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
Table 4.3 Student results (Fartun) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Table 4.4 Student results (Camilo) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 4.5 Student results (Abdi) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
Table 4.6 Student results (Jayne) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 4.7 Student results (Boon) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Table 4.8 Student results (Farhia) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 4.9 Student results (Lee) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Table 4.10 Post-test results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 4.1 Control Group Regular Past Tense Verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Figure 4.2 Recast Group Regular Past Tense Verb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 4.3 Control Group Irregular Past Tense Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 4.4 Recast Group Irregular Past Tense Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 4.5 Control Group Present Tense Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Figure 4.6 Recast Group Present Tense Verbs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Figure 4.7 Control Group Regular Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Figure 4.8 Recast Group Regular Plural . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION

Farhia * was a new student in my Community Education Intermediate ESL class.

With a bright smile and even brighter attitude, she was a woman everyone respected and
even admired. She had been in the United States fifteen years, and, despite having no
opportunity for formal schooling in her native country, she had now advanced from the
beginning course to my intermediate classroom. She and her husband owned a very
successful small business in the neighboring city and she was busy raising four children.
Upon meeting Farhia, I immediately noticed the beautiful English she spoke. This was
surprising to me. A slight accent was noticeable, but the vocabulary, sentence structure
and content rivaled that of a native English speaker. Surely Farhia belonged elsewhere.
The local university or technical college would be more apt to further her education.
However, it soon became apparent what Farhia needed.
Despite near verbal fluency, Farhia had never learned to read or write (in her
native languages - she speaks three others) or in English. Born in Ethiopia and raised in
Somalia, she did not have a chance to learn to read or write before coming to the United
States. Then came babies and the immediate need of a job to help support her family.
Farhia learned speaking and listening from paying attention on the job, but reading and
writing were not as easily self-taught. Struggling to sound-out and spell the most basic of

All names throughout the paper have been changed.

words in English, I could tell that Farhia, despite her can do attitude, was feeling
frustrated. Farhia was not alone in my class of primarily Somali students. Most of them
could speak very well and hold conversations quite proficiently; however, reading was
still a struggle and writing seemed nearly impossible for many of them. This learning
pattern was such a contrast from many of my other intermediate students from other areas
in the world, who struggled with conversation skills, but could read and write amazingly
well and knew grammar rules that I, as the teacher, sometimes was unsure of. Although
this great variation in student abilities was challenging, it also was very encouraging and
complementary in that it gave the students the opportunity to help and learn from one
another.
After meeting and speaking with Farhia, I realized that even though I asked a lot
of questions and tried to relate to my students, I was not truly taking into account the
backgrounds and the past history of my adult learners with respect to how they had
worked to learn English up until this point. And, despite all my efforts, some of the
students were not progressing as they (or I) hoped they would. These were very bright
adults, who all spoke at least one language besides English. In fact, many actually spoke
two, three or more. Having successfully relocated to the United States, many with a
spouse and children, they had proven to want to succeed and most worked hard to
provide for their family and offer support for their children in school. They certainly
could learn!
This conflict of wanting to learn and actually successfully grasping the language
led me to look more closely at the students I was teaching. Although they all had one

common goal, learning the English language, they certainly had not taken the same path
to arrive in my Community Education English classroom. Most of the students came
from Somalia and Mexico; others came from Laos, Sudan, Cambodia, Vietnam,
Colombia, Brazil and Mongolia. All came with the hope of creating a better life for
themselves here, but some left war-torn cities and refugee camps, while others left
extreme poverty, and still others left stability and success for the opportunity to live in
America. Some had rigorous schooling throughout their childhood and adolescence, and
others had limited formal education or none at all.
With all this in mind, I decided to take a fresh approach to my methods, and look
to bring in some new ideas in writing instruction to my curriculum. My students needed
to improve their writing skills. With so many varying degrees of literacy, there had to be
something I could do for all my students to focus on the writing skills.
Writing Practice Evaluation
Taking a step back to assess what I had been doing in my teaching, I came to the
realization that during my time as an ESL instructor, I had focused my writing instruction
on more of a behavioral and functional approach; that is, I focused my students on what
was needed for survival. We worked on very functional, content-specific writing. For
example, we filled out sample job applications and medical forms. We practiced writing
checks, resumes and school registration forms. While I certainly do not feel this was a
disservice to my students, I began to wonder if maybe I should be focusing on more than
those survival skills to truly improve the overall literacy skills. In fact, those that are
critical of the behavioral and functional approach believe that writing should be much

more than filling out forms and that this approach actually may limit the types of writing
students are prepared for and the roles that it encourages them to take (Tollefson, 1989 as
cited in Auerbach, 1999).
Surely, those written survival skills have their place in an adult ESL classroom.
They focus on successful functioning in society, life skills, and on what students can do
as a result of the instruction (Auerbach, 1986). But, looking a bit deeper, depending on
what life skills one is focusing on, and how success is defined, these activities may
support adult ESL students getting only the lowest level jobs (Auerbach, 1986). Of
course filling out forms was never the only writing we did in class, but maybe other types
were not done regularly enough to achieve and maintain progress.
Auerbach (1999) proposes a more cognitive approach to writing which focuses on
writing to express oneself and make meaning. This approach focuses more on
meaningful communication, with content that is easily accessible to students. Their prior
knowledge and information about their lives can be used rather than having to research
anything else (Vanett & Jurich, 1990). This type of more open writing also focuses on
the process of writing while reflecting and exploring other ideas (Auerbach, 1999).
With writing in mind, I looked at my current students and it was easy for me to
identify those that were serious about learning. They came to class regularly, and were
always armed with their notebook, in which they frequently wrote down words or phrases
that they had questions on. We would spend a lot of time going over these items. Most of
the time they wrote down exactly what they heard (spelling not important), which I could
usually figure out once I was given the context. Coupling these ideas, the notebook

vocabulary and the information about their lives, and keeping Farhias writing issue in
mind, I started to wonder how dialogue journaling would work in my classroom. It
certainly supported the basic educational beliefs of a learner-centered classroom, that is,
one in which the learners knowledge and experiences are considered important and they
can make choices about the content and direction that the class takes (Parrish, 2003).
And this was certainly a direction I wanted to take my classes.
Dialogue Journaling
Dialogue journals help in building community within classrooms (Kim, 2005)
and I have used them in my traditional English classroom with native speaking high
school students. But, could a dialogue journal improve a students writing? Certainly on
the surface it incorporated many cognitive learning strategies into an ongoing activity:
repeating (perhaps beginning and ending entries the same way), formally practicing the
writing system, recognizing and using formulas and patterns (this could bring much more
awareness of routine phrases), recombining (definitely a non-threatening outlet for
experimenting with longer phrases) and practicing naturalistically (a conversation in
written form). Using print to understand incoming or produce outgoing messages,
analyzing expressions, translating, transferring, summarizing and highlighting could also
all be applied (Oxford, 1990).
However, most of the research that I have found on dialogue journaling focuses
on quite advanced English language learners. My students are at an intermediate level,
which in our program constitutes CASAS reading scores from 200-240. This represents
a very wide range of abilities, and does not reflect the learners ability to write. I have

students who can only spell the most basic words in English (e.g. in, sit, at, etc.) and
certainly are not able to put together a sentence, along with students who can very
eloquently give a written description of the city or village that they were raised in.
Additionally, other research with dialogue journaling was done on very young ESL
learners. My learners are adults adults who can be very inflexible with language
learning beliefs. Could dialogue journals work for all these students? Additionally, I
would be responding to the journal entries. Would the matter of responding impact the
success or enthusiasm of the student writer?
Responding to Student Writing
There are many ways in which a teacher can respond to student writing and much
discussion on whether those responses should include error correction or not. The
response/feedback could be direct, which occurs when the teacher identifies the error and
then provides the correct form (known as a recast) or indirect, where it is indicated that
an error has been made, but no correction is provided, thereby leaving the student to
figure out the problem on their own. Indirect feedback can also be simplified as being
coded or uncoded. Coded feedback shows the specific location of the error and gives the
type of error found with a code (PT might mean present tense) (Bitchener, Young &
Cameron, 2005). Conversely, responses to journal entries could simply be a response to
the content contained in the entry. In this case, no corrective feedback is given. Does the
type of feedback affect the perceived improvement, or lack of improvement, in writing?

The Research Questions

The goal of my research is to determine if dialogue journaling can positively
affect writing accuracy with intermediate level (CASAS scores ranging from 200 240)
ESL students, including non-formally educated, low-literacy adults, and, whether the
manner in which the instructor replies affects the outcome. Specifically, I hope to
discover if recasts impact accuracy of the targeted morphemes: past tense regular and
irregular verbs, present tense third personal singular verbs and the regular plural nouns.
Or, is a certain level of literacy needed prior to journaling in order to see improvements
in writing accuracy, based on the specific morpheme analysis.
Significance for Others
Teachers are always looking for new ways to reach their students, identify with
their students and of course improve their students language skills. Dialogue journals
seem to address all of those issues together. However, many of the studies on dialogue
journals specifically target college-level English language learners, or, at the least, very
advanced learners. This study will help to determine if the usefulness of dialogue
journals can be transferred to lower-level adult students as well. This study helps pinpoint
the effectiveness of dialogue journals with writing skills that vary greatly. With the help
of this study, teachers will be able to judge whether or not dialogue journals are
worthwhile for those with very low writing skills. Furthermore, this study will determine
if recasts are an effective form of feedback within dialogue journaling, or if similar
results are found with simple responses that include no corrective feedback.

Additionally, with the ever increasing Somali population in Minnesota, I believe

teachers, especially here within central Minnesota, will be interested in seeing if dialogue
journals can improve the writing skills of this specific population. Particularly since
there is such a strong oral tradition in the Somali culture, this activity would seem to fit
that strength, and then take it a step further in working on additional literacy skills such
as writing and reading as well (Farid & McMahan, 2004). In fact, since many of the
traditions and values of the Somali culture have been passed down the generations using
such things as poetry, stories and proverbs (Farid & McMahan, 2004) albeit orally,
dialogue journaling seems perfect to reach these particular learners.
Finally, I hope this research will be of benefit for the students. By determining if
this activity helps them show improvement in their writing, it is something that they can
continue with other teachers, tutors, or even friends or colleagues from class. Dialogue
journaling could help the students practice working independently and also encourage
more abstract thinking within the entries as the students writing grows. Additionally,
simple confidence in their ability can emerge as they are able to communicate
successfully via writing.
Conclusion
The following chapter, the literature review, looks at the characteristics of low
literacy, interrupted education students and investigates their needs, including Vygotskys
theory of learning and its tie to dialogue journaling. It also discusses dialogue journals
more in depth. It describes how they can be integrated into a curriculum and what
benefits and drawbacks there are to their use. Additionally, it presents several dialogue

journal studies and reflects upon the findings within those studies. Finally, it discusses
the theory behind the focus on form, forms and meaning, and looks into the various
beliefs in responding to student writing, particularly that of using recasts.
The third chapter, the methodology, describes the specifics on how the research
was done. The fourth chapter, the results, discusses how the project proceeded and the
information that was gathered from the research. The final chapter, the conclusion,
analyzes those results and discusses the findings.

10

CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW

Dialogue journaling is certainly not a new idea. The actual name dialogue
journal was created in 1979 by Jana Staton, an educational psychologist and Leslee
Reed, a sixth-grade teacher, to describe their practice of daily writing back and forth with
their students (Jones, 1991b). These were native English speaking students, and they
were children. The population in the present study is adults that are English language
learners, some of whom are non-formally educated and some of whom are at a low
literacy level. However, despite these significant differences, it seems feasible that
dialogue journaling can be a beneficial activity for any student and can positively affect
the students writing accuracy of specific, targeted morphemes. That being looked at, it
also stands to reason that the method of response to the journaling could affect the
outcomes as well.
In this chapter, the general educational background of the adult students in focus
will be explored. Additionally, more specifics about exactly what a dialogue journal is
will be discussed. The benefits of use and also certain negative issues will be examined.
And, several studies involving dialogue journals will be analyzed. Finally, the means of
responding to students writing will be looked at, including a focus on the form or formS
in instruction and specific techniques and studies regarding responses.

11

Student Educational Background

Within most English as a Second Language classrooms, there is a vast cultural
diversity among the students. Nationwide, approximately one in five persons age five
and older speaks a language other than English (DiCerbo, 2006). Additionally, in the 20year period between 1980 - 2000, the number of adult English language learners doubled
from six to twelve percent of the total U.S. population (Morse, 2004). Among these
English language learners, some are recently arrived, some are long-term immigrants,
some are permanent residents and some are refugees (DiCerbo, 2006).
In addition to the differences in length of time in the United States, adult English
language learners have an extremely varied educational background. Some may have
had interrupted formal schooling, some may have been educated in a country without a
writing system and some may have limited access to education and literacy in their
native countries because of political, social, economic, ethnic, and religious strife
(Center for Adult English Language Acquisition, 2005). Conversely, some adult learners
may have post-secondary or graduate degrees and just need improvement in the English
language. These differences provide an interesting and challenging backdrop for any
curriculum used.
In the United States, English language learners are mostly Spanish speakers, but
even with that commonality, Spanish-speaking can include a significantly diverse
population with learners from South America, Central America and Mexico (DiCerbo,
2006). However, each school or individual program will service their particular
population, which in the area of this study, includes mainly Somali learners.

12

By the 1980s, Somalia was entering its civil war. The people of Somalia, both
the educated, city people and the rural people, were fleeing the country any way they
could (Farid & McMahon, 2004). Since January, 1991, when the Somali Civil War
began, Somalia has had no organized systems of learning at any level (Abdi, 1998). In
fact, approximately 45 percent of the population had escaped to another country or were
dislocated from their homes by 1992. Clearly survival, and not education, was in the
forefront for these people. During this time, most of the schools and universities were
destroyed leaving those most in need of an education with nowhere to turn (Putman &
Noor, 1993). In fact, most of the schools, libraries and other places of learning were
deliberately destroyed, leaving Somalias education system overwhelmingly devastated
(Abdi, 1998). Therefore, due to the upheaval and unrest in the country, Somalis under the
age of 30 have most likely received no formal schooling at all. Also, many of the adults
from Somalia have arrived in the U.S. via Kenyan refugee camps. Within the refugee
camps, they did not have the advantage of schooling, and most of the time was probably
spent on day-to-day survival (Farid & McMahon, 2004).
One more factor is that before 1972, Somali had no written form, thus raising the
importance of verbal communication and the rich oral tradition of storytelling (Putman &
Noor, 1993). Indeed, the values of the culture have been passed orally from generation to
generation through poetry, stories and proverbs. In fact, each community has certain
members considered to be sages because of their special skill of sharing stories and
experiences orally. Older, non-literate Somali people can often times listen to a story
once and be able to retell it with amazing accuracy (Farid & McMahon, 2004).

13

Traditionally, oral poetry and verse were used to mark almost every significant
occurrence in Somali life. Everything from birth and marriage to separation and war was
marked by verse (Bartholet, 1992). In our Western culture, where the printed word is
relied upon so heavily, this importance on oral dialogue is a very foreign concept (Farid
& McMahon, 2004).
Considering the background of the majority of my learners, how could I
specifically target this group of learners and the others, and bring them forward on their
journey toward literacy? Would mirroring the importance of oral dialogue within a
written journal be the connection? Would implementing dialogue journals into my
curriculum assist these students in improving their writing skills?
What are Dialogue Journals?
Dialogue journals can be thought of as conversations between two or more
individuals that are written in nature and kept in a notebook or on a computer. Both
partners write to each other, back and forth, over a period of time (Jones, 1991b; Kim,
2005; Peyton, 1990b). Many times these exchanges are between teacher and student, but
are certainly not limited to those individuals. A tutor or a peer may also use this sort of
interaction. This communication is used to exchange ideas, thoughts, questions, concerns
or really any information that creates interest between the two parties.
As dialogue journals are used in more and more classrooms, educators and
linguists have recognized some essential characteristics that specifically identify dialogue
journal writing as compared to other kinds of written communications. Jones (1991b)
states that first of all, dialogue journals are interactive. Both the teacher and the students

14

(or whomever the parties involved may be) take equal turns writing and responding.
Both of the participants would write regularly - for adult students, this could be up to one
to three times per week. And, the correspondence will take place throughout the duration
of the course. Additionally, Jones (1991b) notes that topics are usually not assigned
leaving the writers to feel free to discuss whatever they choose. However, sometimes
there could be a broad suggested topic or topics, which the participants have room to
personalize to fit their individual interests.
Another characteristic of dialogue journals is that they are generally not corrected
or graded. Because the writing is not corrected, it leads to more genuine dialogue and
assists the students in feeling more free and unthreatened with their writing. However,
many students, my own included, prefer to have everything they do corrected this
conflict will be addressed later in this chapter.
It is important to actually physically keep the journal in something, like a
notebook or saved e-mails, that can be referred back to. This is key because unlike oral
conversations, this is more of a learning tool that gives the participants something to look
back on and review. Knowing that this writing is out there, Jones also notes that most
teachers keep these writings private which adds to the non-threatening environment
(1991b).
In addition to these basic rules for dialogue journals, Jones (1991b) also notes six
qualities that really set this writing apart from other types of academic writing. First of
all, the writing needs to focus on communication. Underneath spelling errors,
punctuation mistakes and other surface issues, the important matter is what is being

15

communicated. Next, the exchanges need to be non-threatening. While some students

may feel intimidated speaking out in class, the journal should be a safe place for them to
communicate without fear of embarrassment or self-consciousness. Third, the topics
should be of great interest - many times this could be things that a participant might not
feel comfortable sharing in front of an entire class. Fourth, it is very important to have
equality in the interaction. Whereas in the classroom the teacher is the authority figure,
in the journal, both parties are equals merely conversing about various topics. Next, the
journals should be functional that is demonstrating a variety of communicative
purposes (Jones, 1991b). Things like, responding to questions, requesting information,
complaining, evaluating, etc. many times are all included within the various entries over
time. Finally, the content within dialogue journals tends to evolve over time many
times going from simple subjects to more personal topics (Staton, Shuy, Peyton & Reed,
1988).
All of these qualities make dialogue journaling very different from other school
based writing. Dialogue journaling as a means of language acquisition can also be
supported through Vygotskys Theory of Learning.
Vygotskys Theory of Learning
Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896 1934) focused on the connections
between people and the social experiences in which one is involved. According to
Vygotsky, humans learning of such things as speech and writing are tools they are using
to understand and interact with the social environment around them (Wertsch & Sohmer,
1995). At first, these skills are only for social functions, but then they can lead to higher

16

thinking skills. Therefore, it would seem that social interaction should be of first and
foremost importance on every level to encourage cognitive development.
Extending this theory to second language acquisition, Vygotsky supported the
belief of a More Knowledgeable Other (Wertsch & Sohmer, 1995) which refers to
anyone who has a better understanding or higher ability level than the learner. When
language learners collaborate and interact with others who are more advanced in the
second language, possibly a teacher or more advanced student, the learner is able to
advance to higher levels of linguistic knowledge (Lightbown & Spada, 1999). Therefore,
a dialogue journal could provide the perfect social opportunity for great linguistic gains.
Vygotsky also believed in the Zone of Proximal Development. This is how Vygotsky
describes the distance between the students ability to perform a task under guidance and
their ability to succeed independently. That is, the level the learner is capable of when
there is support with interaction from a more knowledgeable speaker is different than
what they could do on their own (Lightbown & Spada, 1999). Vygotsky believed that
learning occurs through these differences in ability between the speaker and interlocutor
(Wertsch & Sohmer, 1995). Given these well known beliefs, it seems logical to explore
writing instruction based on social interaction, especially that of dialogue journaling, to
maximize a learners results.
Benefits of Dialogue Journals
A Community Within a Classroom
The first benefit seen within the adult ESL classroom is that dialogue journaling
can create a new area in which both learners and teacher move beyond traditional roles

17

and interact in a different way. Also, the context reflected is less academic and more a
reflection of their lives (Kim, 2005).
Realistically, a teacher cannot converse at length with each student, each day
throughout the school year. Additionally, when students are just learning English, they
may be embarrassed about a specific concern or with the limits of their language to say
what they mean (Peyton & Reed, 1990). Having a journal gives teachers the time for the
one-on-one interaction with each student. This is beneficial in that the more aggressive
students can speak at length with the teacher without monopolizing the class time, and
more shy students are encouraged to have a dialogue as well (Jones, 1991a). One more
community builder is that the teacher can offer praise, encouragement or simply
understanding without the student feeling uncomfortable with peers (Peyton and Reed,
1990).
The sense of community is also enhanced when students feel comfortable
addressing adjustment issues, discrimination issues, or cultural issues. These are all areas
where a student may not feel at ease asking a question in front of peers, but knowing they
have a trusted confidante that they can confide in may make it easier to address these
topics (Jones, 1991a). By addressing these personal topics, if the student chooses to, the
teacher gets a better understanding of the student outside of the classroom and may be
able to better service this student.
Changes in Attitude
One of the greatest benefits of dialogue journaling is that it may help adults get
over any fear they may have of writing in a non-native language and that may lead to

18

more self-confidence and a willingness to write (Jones, 1991a). Students at first may feel
afraid to write, but after some encouragement and experience writing in the nonthreatening context about subject matter they enjoy, they develop confidence and a more
open attitude toward writing (Jones, 1991a).
Another attitude that may change is that of the student toward school in general.
Success in written dialogue can encourage a greater willingness to participate in other
areas within the classroom (Jones, 1991a). In fact, the opportunity to ask the teacher
questions and receive personable answers can create more of a bond and then more of an
accountability toward not only the teacher, but the other learners in the classroom as well
(Jones, 1991a).
Discussing and Solving Problems
As students become more comfortable discussing and sharing information with
an instructor, the content of the entries may change from general information about their
lives, such as how many children they have, and their job, to more complex issues that
they are dealing with (Jones, 1991a). If the teacher is willing and able to respond to such
things as issues with work, housing problems, neighborhood violence, etc., the student
may feel comfortable opening up about these more personal items (Jones, 1991a).
Because recent immigrants and refugees to this country face many obstacles, having a
person they trust to voice these concerns to may be very beneficial emotionally.
Additionally, many times the instructor may know information about an agency or
individual who could help (Jones, 1991a). Although the instructor must be careful not to

19

cross the line to a perceived therapist role, the student might just need someone to share
the burden with, and not necessarily solve the problem (Jones, 1991a).
Individualized Language and Content Learning
As mentioned earlier, within most ESL classrooms, often times there are a very
wide range of abilities. Some students may just be beginning to learn English, some may
be able to write fairly well, and some may be preparing for university classes. Those
students who have lower literacy skills may feel lost or unable to keep up with others.
However, with dialogue journals, even those low level students can put something in a
journal even if it is just a couple of words and receive a response back from the
instructor. Therefore, they are participating in the same activities as the rest of the
students (Peyton & Reed, 1990).
Because of this varied range of abilities, the instructor, of course, will adjust
his/her language so that it is appropriate for the readers individual ability. Also, because
the instructor can focus on the individual student, the correct language forms and
structures that the student has attempted can be modeled correctly within the actual
context of the journal (Peyton & Reed, 1990). Additionally, when the instructor uses
vocabulary that the student doesnt understand, those words or phrases can be explained
in subsequent entries, thus clearly individualizing the lesson.
Finally, by using language modeling, the instructor can specifically pinpoint areas
where a student needs assistance. For example, by re-stating something the student has
said in a previous journal entry, with the correct English form or spelling, the teacher is
modeling that proper usage without directly telling the student they did it incorrectly

20

(Peyton & Reed, 1990). Additionally, vocabulary can be boosted by modeling the proper
words in a response within the dialogue interaction. Teacher modeling is completely
learner specific and thus very individualized.
Gaining Information for Assistance in Future Lesson Planning
The topics and questions that students bring up in their journals can give ideas for
future lesson planning (Peyton & Reed, 1990). If several students mention searching for a
job or problems filling out applications, that might be an area the instructor focuses on in
future classes. Additionally, if students continually focus on historical information or
things they have seen in nature, this could lead to science or social topics more regularly.
The students interests really come through in journal writing.
Some instructors pattern lessons around mistakes in structure or vocabulary used
in the students journals. If several students repeatedly make the same mistake with
certain word usage or structure, the instructor might take those examples and use them
for a class discussion (Peyton & Reed, 1990). Using actually examples, especially with
adult students, seems to help them internalize the information more and apply it more
readily to their own work.
Students Have the Opportunity to Use Writing For Genuine Communication
For many students, writing is simply done for academic reasons. Many times the
subject matter is teacher generated or, especially with adult students, driven out of
necessity. Things like applications, medical forms, school registrations and the like are
what adults write on a daily basis, and therefore, inevitably part of the real-life
curriculum in an ESL course. However, this writing, while extremely important, does not

21

encourage communication. Dialogue journals, on the other hand, can be completely

open-ended and a time when students can freely express themselves (Peyton & Reed,
1990). This freedom of expression can take the pressure off when writing and allow the
student to simply enjoy it.
Additionally, students can learn more about the writing process things covered
in class like punctuation and grammatical form can be used as they begin to actually
think more and understand how everything fits together (Peyton & Reed, 1990). Also,
when the teacher is writing, they are giving the student a continual model of proficient
writing. Things like the thought process, organization and coherence are modeled along
with more advanced phrases and sentences (Peyton & Reed, 1990).
Finally, when a student learns more about the writing process and gains
confidence, this can serve as a bridge to academic writing (Jones, 1991a). Skills such as
expanding on a topic or writing with awareness of the audience are items important in
formal academic writing, but that can be practiced within the realms of dialogue
journaling (Jones, 1991a).
Students Have an Additional Opportunity for Reading
Every time the teacher responds to a journal entry, it gives the student text to read.
That text is generally closely tied to their personal life, and therefore quite interesting,
meaningful and comprehensible material (Peyton & Reed, 1990; Jones, 1991a). Many
times finding appropriate and significant beginning material can be challenging with
adult students. With dialogue journals, reading can start after their first entry be it a
picture or simply a few words. They dont need a lot of background information, since

22

they initiated the topic and the teacher could read the response to them and then ask the
student to read it alone. This response encourages a beginning student to read and it
takes place in the realm of genuine communication (Peyton & Reed, 1990).
Reading benefits are evident for more advanced students as well. Students want
to read how the teacher has responded even those who show less enthusiasm for
reading other materials in class (Peyton & Reed, 1990). And, of course, the more a
student reads the more their reading improves.
Improved Fluency in Writing
One of the areas that can greatly benefit from dialogue journaling is fluency, that
is, the ability to communicate fairly easily and effectively through the written word
(Jones, 1991a). There are four areas that are considered necessary for fluency in writing.
First of all, one should be able to write easily and not spend a lot of time agonizing over
what or how to write something. Secondly, the meaning must come across in
understandable sentences. Next, one should be able to use writing for many different
purposes. Finally, the writing should be creative and imaginative (Gutstein, 1987 as cited
in Jones, 1991a).
Dialogue journaling supports each of these areas. Many researchers have found
that when a learner starts writing in a dialogue journal they might begin with just a few
sentences. However, as their confidence grows, so does their ability to write more easily
and quickly (Kreeft, 1984; Shuy, 1980 as cited in Jones, 1991a). Additionally, speaking
in a journal helps students to get their meanings across clearly. Misunderstandings can
be cleared up in future entries, thus encouraging understandable sentences. Next,

23

journaling regularly makes use of a multitude of functions from giving personal

information to asking questions to complaining all necessary functions of language.
Finally, creativity can come out through practice, again, encouraging fluency (Jones,
1991a).
Issues Regarding Dialogue Journals
Time Management
One of the issues that surfaces regarding dialogue journals is that of time
management. Simply put, dialogue journals require a lot of time from the teacher.
Responding regularly to student entries, in addition to preparing for the next class,
correcting any other homework and keeping up to date with program-required paper work
can be overwhelming. However, teachers who truly believe the dialogue is important
will find time some may use journaling with only certain classes, some ask students to
only write a couple of journal entries a week, some may respond to every two entries
rather than every one. Others may combine teacher-student and student-student writing or
utilize the presence of a classroom volunteer. Teachers simply need to know that the
journals take time and will need to be worked into the schedule (Peyton, 1991).
Correcting
In addition to the time needed, many times, especially when working with adults,
the issue of correcting comes up. Many students want every piece of work they do
corrected. And, while it is important to validate students expectations, one of the
important qualities in dialogue journaling is that it not be corrected (Jones, 1991b).
According to Peyton (1991), students need to understand that writing includes much

24

more than producing a perfect product that it involves exploring ideas, finding a
personal voice and style to express ideas. The students need to see that the mechanics of
writing the grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc. come later in the process and dont
need all the focus.
However, while dialogue journaling is a place where students can write freely,
they do need to be reassured that as the teacher, you will pay attention to the mechanics
as well. There are various ways this can be achieved, sometimes outside of the journal
revision and editing can be used for correction, or exercises that focus on problems areas
can be used elsewhere in class (Peyton, 1991). Additionally, teachers can focus on
correct written forms within the journal, without interrupting the dialogue in various
ways. Peyton (1991) specifies four ways this can be done. First, the teacher can model
the correct usage in their response. This is easily done without interrupting the dialogue
by simply restating with correct usage to show understanding and to comment on the
response. Another way to address problems is by making note of the issue and then
focusing some time on the issue during class. Additionally, teachers could hold
individual conferences with the students periodically. During these conferences, teachers
could specifically go over a certain entry or entries and discuss errors, rules and
corrections. Finally, teachers can address errors by adding a note at the end of the
response that focuses on a couple of grammar points (Peyton, 1991). These are all nonthreatening ways to address errors, while reassuring the students that they are not to
worry about writing correctly all the time, but instead to write with meaning and trust
that the writing will evolve.

25

Students Who are Pre-Literate

Obviously, those students who are not literate in English will not be able to write
extensive entries. However, any student who has some proficiency with oral English and
knows how to print can begin to keep a dialogue journal. While journals might be a bit
more challenging with this group, some of the things they might be able to do include
drawing, dictating and writing only what they know.
Many adults enjoy drawing and, in fact, might feel it less intimidating than
actually creating whole sentences or phrases. Therefore, they might want to draw at least
some of the message they are trying to convey. The teacher can then write a reply about
the picture and, if needed, read it to the student (Peyton, 1991).
Additionally, adults could dictate their message to the teacher, a volunteer, a tutor,
or even another student. The message can by read aloud; the teacher can reply and then
read the reply to the student (Peyton, 1991). This technique is especially useful because
it allows the student to participate as the other students are and it makes good use of
volunteers or tutors in the classroom.
Finally, the adult students could just write whatever they know and leave blanks
for the words they dont know; or just write the first letter if they can. Here, the teacher
can complete the entry by filling in the blanks and then responding (Peyton, 1991). This
technique specifically can build vocabulary and spelling so the student will soon be able
to produce more words independently and build a vocabulary bank for the student to refer
back to.

26

Dialogue Journal Studies

The preceding information gives a starting point for looking at dialogue journals.
It discusses what a dialogue journal is and some of the basic benefits and complications
regarding its use. In this section, specific studies involving dialogue journals will be
looked at and compared to the study at hand.
A Perspective Study of University Students
Holmes and Moulton (1997) conducted a study of the perspectives that secondlanguage university students have on dialogue journal writing as a learning strategy.
The researchers collected data from six students during a 15-week composition class in
an English language program from a southwestern U.S. university. The data that was
collected and analyzed included weekly journals the students kept and also the transcripts
of four personal interviews the researchers held with each participant during which they
asked guided questions about the participants views toward journaling. The researchers
looked for patterns in the students views of the dialogue journaling and found three:
interpersonal perspectives, intrapersonal perspectives and developmental perspectives.
The developmental perspective showed the most potential for understanding students
views and was divided into two subcategories writing fluency and motivation to write.
From these two subcategories, the researchers were able to determine that the ESL
students considered dialogue journaling as an effective and worthwhile approach for
learning English.
Looking at a growing writing fluency, the students used words such as, easier,
better, and comfortable to describe the increase in their writing fluency. These

27

students revealed that specific characteristics of journal writing contributed to the

perceived improvement in writing. Those characteristics were topic choice, spontaneity,
and frequency.
First of all, students believed that, because they were writing about topics that
they chose on their own which then is more like spoken conversations that the writing
was easier. Secondly, like conversations, the students felt a freedom of expression. In
fact, they stopped using dictionaries and instead focused more on the communication
within their writing, which then brought increased fluency. Finally, even though most
students have conversations daily, most do not write daily and the participants who wrote
frequently in the journals noted that the more frequently they wrote, the better the fluency
developed. This is similar to my study in that many of my students can speak English
well enough to hold a conversation, but do not take the time to practice writing daily and
therefore do not see their written literacy improve. Quite possibly, the dialogue journals
will help in this area.
The six participants in this study were very motivated to write and to practice.
The more they wrote, the more confident they became in their fluency. One of the
features of the dialogue journal that led to this motivation was that the writing was
uncorrected. This allowed the students to try without being afraid of errors. However,
despite the absence of correction, the six students perceived improvement was guided by
the model that the teacher provided with her responses to their entries. These responses
gave specific models of the correct grammatical forms, which the participants then could
internalize and follow on their own schedule. This, too, ties to my study in that I am

28

looking at recasts to determine if that extra awareness of the error helps the student to
increase correct usage in the specific areas I am looking at.
There are issues and questions from the Holmes and Moulton study. First and
foremost, the students overwhelmingly saw increased fluency and motivation to write in
English, however, there was no objective means to actually measure the perceived
fluency. Additionally, while the participants saw increases in fluency during journal
writing, would that perceived increase in fluency transfer to other writing contexts and
actually benefit the writer in day-to-day living? Finally, an implication for my study is
the fact that these were university level students much higher proficiency participants
than those that I work with. Would this perceived increase in fluency transfer across
lower levels of literacy?
A Study of the Effect of Teacher Strategies on Students Interactive Writing
A study by Peyton and Seyoum (1988) looked specifically at the role the teacher
plays in the success of the dialogue journal interaction, and the teaching strategies that
promote the writing of the students. This modified case study was useful in identifying
specific types of interaction between the teacher and the students. The questions that the
researchers asked were: How are certain strategies used by the teacher in her dialogue
journal writing? Do different teacher strategies affect student response rate and the
quantity and syntactic complexity of student writing? And, are there differences in
teacher strategies and student writing based on the level of English proficiency of the
students?

29

The participants of this study were twelve limited proficient students six were
Asian and six were Hispanic. These were sixth-grade students that the researchers then
identified as high, mid or low within their limited proficiency. The students were
required, throughout the school year, to write a minimum of three sentences daily in their
dialogue journals. The researchers then extracted a sample of 15 consecutive
interactions, after about 7 months of writing, from each participants journal to analyze.
In an analysis of the results, it was found that this teacher took the role of the
respondent to topics rather than the initiator most of the time. She did not show any
difference in response patterns despite student variations in proficiency level, and she
most frequently made personal contributions in her entries. If the teacher requested a
response, the student replied more regularly then if the teacher simply made a
contribution with no request for a response. However, even though specific questions
seemed to get more frequent writing, they did not elicit more writing. It seems that when
the teacher included more personal contributions, the students tended to write more in
their responses. Additionally, the students in this study seemed to write the most openly
and freely when the teacher and student found a topic in common, that both were
interested in and had a lot to write about. Finally, it was found that the teacher strategy
did not seem to affect the syntactic complexity of the student writing.
These results seem to support the use of dialogue journals specifically as a means
of holding a conversation, and not so much as a teacher-led question-answer forum. The
success of the journal rests in the teachers active participation in significant and shared
communication (Peyton & Seyoum, 1988).

30

This study, too, is not without issues. First of all, it is not specifically compared
to dialogue journaling in which the teacher exerts more control over the content; although
it does reference an instance in another study where specific, repeated questions caused
frustration and a dramatic decrease in writing of a student (Morroy, 1985 as cited in
Peyton & Seyoum, 1988). Secondly, it seems that student proficiency plays a bigger role
in influencing the students written production than anything the teacher does. Finally, a
specific limitation in regard to my study is that these are sixth grade students. Adult
students could presumably react very differently to the same strategies.
Dialogue Journal Writing and the Acquisition of English Grammatical Morphology
A study by Peyton (1990a) looked at several issues regarding language
acquisition. In this study, she looked at how students, in this case five sixth-grade ESL
students who had been in the United States less than 1 year, were able to acquire specific
English morphemes through their journal writing. Specifically, she focused on whether
there is evidence of language acquisition during the time of this free dialogue writing,
whether progress in language can be used as information for teachers about the
improvement of the students, and what the acquisition patterns in writing are and if they
mirror patterns of acquisition in speech. Additionally, she looked at whether the patterns
are particular to each individual student, or similar between students. Because my study
focuses only on the language acquisition through writing, I will focus my discussion of
this study only on that particular area.
The data for this study was collected through dialogue journal writing done as a
supplementary activity students did during their free time each day. The students

31

received the journals each morning, with the teachers response from the day before
included.
Peyton looked specifically at the acquisition of 10 morphemes - six verb-related
and four noun-related as they were used in the student journals.
These morphemes are as follows:
Verb-related morphemes
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Regular past
Irregular past
Progressive ing
Progressive auxiliary BE
Copula BE
Third-person singular, present
tense

He played in the street.

He saw the school.
He is playing in the street.
He is playing in the street.
He is a good student.
John likes school.

Noun-related morphemes
7. Regular plural
8. Possessives s
9. Definite article the
10. Indefinite article a

They are good students.

We went to Marys house.
The teacher has a book.

Peyton chose to focus on these particular morphemes because on the first reading of the
journals, these stood out as clearly developing and most were used only occasionally or
not at all. However, as the year went on, they were used much more frequently.
Peyton found that dialogue journal writing did reflect improvement in the
students language proficiency of these specific morphemes over time. She was clearly
able to show quantifiable growth for each student throughout the given time frame (10
months, here). Finally, the examples of student writing included from the study clearly
show that English language learners can surely write and express themselves in written
dialogue much before they have mastered all the rules of writing.

32

This study is of particular interest in that it actually measures grammatical usage

and growth. I intend to model my study, at least partially, after this one. While Peyton
used the dialogue journals as a reflection of language acquisition and writing skills, I will
use dialogue journaling to determine if it can positively affect writing accuracy of
specific morphemes. However, differences that will greatly affect my efforts will be that
I am dealing with adult students and the subjects represented in the study were sixth
graders. Additionally this was a 10-month study with entries written daily. I only meet
with my students twice weekly, and while I will encourage daily writing, I have doubts
that will happen due to the very hectic schedules my students keep. Finally, another
difference is that I will respond differently to a certain group of students (using recasts) to
see if there are differences in writing proficiency based on teacher feedback.
Responding to Student Writing
Focus on Form vs. Focus on FormS
There is much discussion in the language world of the difference in instruction
technique among teachers. One of the main topics discussed is that of a focus on form
technique compared to a focus on formS technique. The difference in these techniques
can be seen in how the student sees themselves and the language (Ellis, 2001). A focus
on form (FonF) technique looks specifically at linguistic elements during communication.
Conversely, a focus on forms (FonFs) looks at specific discrete lexical items within a
non-communicative activity (Laufer, 2006). For example, lessons that focus on mimicry,
memorization or grammar translation would be considered a focus on forms (Spada &
Lightbown, 2008). Basically students in a FonFs situation view themselves as the learner

33

of the language and the language as the object of the study; whereas in FonF, a student
learns and practices everything in light of the communicative aspect of the language
(Ellis, 2001).
Lightbown and Spada (2008) recently have used the terms isolated and integrated
to describe these two approaches to language instruction. Additionally, it is their belief
that one is not better than the other, nor is either approach in competition with the other.
Rather, the two approaches are seen as complimentary to each other in complete language
instruction. Dialogue journaling seems to fit well within the realm of this belief, as the
islolated, formS focused instruction can be brought about within the integrated, or form
focused, communicative interaction.
Feedback on Student Writing
In responding to student writing, there is much discussion on how to address
errors (Bitchener, et al., 2005; Nicholas, Lightbown & Spada, 2001; Revesz & Han,
2006; Sheen, 2007; Loewen & Philp, 2006; Han, 2002). One example of how to address
errors is that of recasts, that is, the corrected response of the learners incorrect statement
(Nicholas, et al., 2001). For example, this is an excerpt from one of the dialogue journals
in my study:
Student: Last weekend I go shopping.
Teacher: Oh, you went shopping last weekend. Did you buy anything?
Some research shows that using recasts like the one above are very effective in
showing language learners their mistakes and the correct form (Long & Robinson, 1998).
In the above interaction, the recast actually performs two functions. First of all it
acknowledges the students statement and, as feedback, it alerts the student to the error

34

and offers a model for the correct format of the attempted statement (Nicholas, et al.,
2001; Jourdenais, Mitsuhiko, Staufer, Boyson & Doughty, 1995). However, other
research suggests that recasts are not clear and might be thought of as confirmation of
meaning, or in the above instance simply a conversational reply instead of feedback on
incorrect usage (Lyster, 1998). Finally, yet another belief in error correction is that
learners must have some way of noticing the error to identify differences in what they
have produced (their interlanguage) and the target language (Schmidt, 1990; Jourdenais,
et al., 1995). It is believed that noticing requires a conscious registration of the material.
Techniques to promote enhancement of written text include a variety of manipulations
such as italics, bold, underlining, etc. (Jourdenais, et al., 1995). Given these differing
beliefs in error correction, the study at hand will differentiate between the response given
to various students by using recasts in one group of journals (specifically highlighting the
error and the correction) and by responding in general to the other group.
Conclusion
Overall, the literature reviewed supports the benefits of dialogue journaling. The
research done to date also strongly shows the benefits as well. From the student
perspective, they showed a belief that the writing was easier, freer, and that they
developed a better written fluency (Holmes & Moulton, 1997). Additionally, it was
found that as a teacher, the more initiative left to the student, the better the results (Peyton
& Seyoum, 1988). Finally, in the case of the improved use of grammatical morphemes, it
was clearly shown that an improvement was seen over time (Peyton, 1990).

35

However, this still leaves one large gap that needs to be filled. In all of these
studies, the participants are not students that an average community-based ESL teacher
would face. They are either university level ESL students, as in the Holmes and Moulton
study, or children (6th grade students) in the other two studies. Clearly, this discrepancy
leaves a big question mark. Would adult ESL students, some coming from very limited
educational backgrounds, respond as favorably to dialogue journaling? Would adult
students at a beginning or intermediate level for reading be able to successfully
communicate via the journals and would all students be able to see written fluency
increases in specific grammatical morpheme use? Additionally, would the manner in
which the instructor responded influence the specific grammatical morpheme use?
Indeed, the area of dialogue journaling and recasts within this adult age group has been
left unstudied.
If positive results are found with adults, many more community programs could
start to use dialogue journaling with or without recasts within their classrooms for
learners of all levels, as a means of improving writing in addition to the plethora of
other benefits dialogue journaling holds. The next chapter, Chapter Three, will detail
how the current study was conducted the specific study participants and the methods
used for achieving the results.

36

CHAPTER THREE: METHODOLOGY

Introduction
Chapter One suggested that student learning can be boosted by social interaction
and that looking beyond life skills to more self-expression can bolster interest and
enthusiasm in writing. The combination of these factors suggests that dialogue journaling
can be a successful part of an overall curriculum to improve adult student writing. This
study aims to determine if dialogue journaling can truly improve the writing skills of all
students, even those starting with very low writing skills. Additionally, does the way in
which the instructor responds have an impact on the success of the student? Specifically,
does dialogue journaling with recasts affect writing accuracy with intermediate level
(CASAS scores ranging from 200 240) ESL students, including those non-formally
educated, low-literacy adult learners? Or, is a certain level of literacy needed prior to
journaling in order to see improvements in writing accuracy, based on specific morpheme
analysis?
The literature review in Chapter Two looked more in depth at the varied
backgrounds of the adult English language learners typically found in my central
Minnesota classroom. Most of them are from Somalia, and all have differences in the
length of time in the United States, educational backgrounds and even reason for coming
to the US (refugee, school, etc.) which can all play a big part in the students ability to
succeed in English classes and further their journey toward literacy. Additionally, the use
of dialogue journals was tied in to Vygotskys Theory of Learning and the benefits and
drawbacks of use were discussed.

37

Looking at some previous studies regarding dialogue journaling, it was shown

that student writing can show improvement in specific grammatical morphemes.
However, these studies were conducted on children or university level ESL students. The
students in this study are adults with varying levels of English literacy. Will the benefits
of dialogue journaling, such as individualized learning, genuine communication and
community building, transfer to this very different set of learners? And, will the means
of teacher response vary the outcome as well?
This chapter will explain the research paradigms that best describe this study. It
also will describe the educational setting and the participants in the study. Additionally,
the procedure used to carry out the research will be presented. Finally, it will discuss the
research methods used.
Research Paradigm
This study can be described most accurately as a classroom-based, largely
quantitative study. It includes classroom based interaction, pre- and post-testing and
survey research. This paradigm seems most effective because from within the confines
of our classroom, the dialogue journaling will be analyzed and compared with the preand post-tests.
The study is classroom based in that it took place within our actual ESL
classroom and focused on the interactions between myself as the teacher, and the English
language learners through the use of dialogue journals. While the interaction itself was
not being analyzed, as in some classroom based research, the setting and interaction in
general dictate that it is classroom based (Brown & Rogers, 2002).

38

Because this study includes the use of pre- and post-tests and uses the analysis of
errors in actual journal entries, it can also be considered quantitative in nature. There is
also a qualitative element to the study through the use of survey information that will be
collected at the beginning of the study to look at the participants previous educational
experiences and confidence in writing, and then again at the conclusion of the study to
ascertain the students attitude and confidence level toward writing after time spent
journaling. This information provides insight into whether or not the students felt the
journaling to be worthwhile.
Educational Setting and Participants
The study takes place at a Community Education sponsored ESL program in a
rural Midwestern city. The classes meet twice weekly, for either two and a half or two
hours each class period. For the afternoon class that meets from 11:30-2:00pm, most of
the students work an afternoon, evening or overnight shift and come to class before or
after work. Other students are not employed and have children that attend school during
this time. In the evening class, most of the students work during the day, and attend class
right after they are finished with work. This class meets from 6:00-8:00pm. There are
daycare facilities available, so those with children are able to drop off their kids while
they attend class.
The age of the adult learners ranges from 22-70, and it is mixed gender. The class
is a mix of nationalities with most of the population coming from Somalia. While all of
the students attending the classes participated in the dialogue journaling, for the purpose
of this study, I am only including those that consistently attended class and completed

39

most of the additional paperwork such as the pre-and post-test and final survey, the
permission form, and initial questionnaire. It actually turned out that gathering the
preliminary forms, such as the permission form and initial questionnaire, took a long time
- class time that I really felt would have been better used in other areas. Additionally,
any students that were not in attendance the day we went over those forms had to be
walked through them independently. Because students regularly join and leave our
program for a variety of reasons, I felt it necessary to have all the students participating in
the journal writing sign a consent form in case I had need to use their material. This did
take a lot of time and proved rather difficult.
Additionally, I am including each participants most recent CASAS test score that
we had on file or that was obtained from testing during class. I also felt it would be
beneficial to find out how much formal schooling each of the participants had prior to my
Community Education classroom. Therefore, for each participant I filled out a personal
information sheet that I kept on file for them. This information was obtained through
personal interviews with the participants before or after class time. Table 3.1 summarizes
the participant information, including age, country of origin, CASAS scores, time in the
U.S. and previous schooling.

40

Table 3.1: Participant Information

Name

Age

Fartun
Lee
Farhia
Abdi
Boon
Jayne
Camilo

23
22
35
38
51
25
19

Start of
Study
CASAS
Score

Country of
Origin
Somalia
Vietnam
Ethiopia/Somalia
Somalia
Laos
Turkey
Brazil

203
256
213
209
236
245
234

Time in
U.S.
4 years
4 years
17 years
4 years
17 years
1 years
1 year

Previous
Schooling
elementary
12 years
no formal schooling *
12 years
6 years elementary
11 years
12 years

As can be seen for the above table, the ages of students in this study varies from
19 51 years old. Additionally, the previous schooling varies greatly from Farhia with
no formal schooling, to Lee, Abdi and Camilo who attended school for twelve years.
Interesting to note, is that while the vast majority of my class is comprised of Somali
students, only three Somali students are included in this study. This is due to
inconsistencies in attendance and journal entries, which will be further explained in
Chapter Five.
Research Procedures
Upon the start of classes during the fall of 2007, I gave the students a notebook on
the first day of class. I explained that we would be doing more writing this year and that
the notebooks could be used both inside and outside of class. While this initial dialogue
journaling was not a part of the actual study, it did set a routine and some expectations as
to what the students could expect from the exercise. Additionally, as the classroom

Farhia is not literate in her native languages.

41

teacher, I looked at the journals critically to determine what problem areas I might want
to focus on during the study.
The class continued using the dialogue journals regularly throughout the entire
school year. I began collecting the data from the dialogue journal entries in March, and
continued through the end of the school year in May. This gave me approximately three
months of interactive entries.
Looking back at the first three months of journal entries (September November
2007), I did a critical analysis and determined that the specific morphemes I would focus
on would be:
1. Regular past tense verbs

He played in the street.

2. Irregular past tense verbs

She ate breakfast.

3. Present tense third person

singular verbs

Megan likes school.

4. Regular plural nouns

She has many books.

These were all areas that the students seem to have problems with in their writing, so I
decided it would be a good place to start. Looking at these specific morphemes, I
focused on whether or not there was increased proficiency over the time span of the
journaling study, in these morphological areas as patterned after Peytons study (1990a).
Specifically, I analyzed the journal entries throughout the study looking for correct and
incorrect use of the above mentioned morphemes, breaking it down into monthly
sections.

42

Data Collection
The analysis of the journal entries, again modeled after Peytons 1990 study,
included reading the journal entries and keeping track of each instance of the specified
morpheme. Then, it was noted whether or not the morpheme was used correctly within
the text. This data was then represented graphically for each student, by using the time
period (month of study) across the bottom x-axis and the percentage of correct usage
represented on the y-axis (Peyton, 1990a).
To cross-check if results were similar to that in regular testing, I administered a
pre- and post-test (Appendixes A and D, respectively) that focused on the specific
morphemes as well. The format of both the pre- and post- tests was identical, with only
the questions different for each one. The tests consisted of three essay questions, worded
in such a way to elicit a specific morphological response. Next, the tests contained twelve
multiple choice questions that, again, targeted the specific morphemes being studied.
Finally, the tests had five fill-in-the-blank questions that lent themselves to specific
morphological responses as well. These tests provided a mixture of questions to
determine what students recognized as correct forms and what they were able to produce
on their own. This data was then represented graphically for each student using the
morphemes across the bottom x-axis and the percentage of correct usage represented on
the y-axis, and using a different color to represent the pre-test and the post-test.
Classroom Procedure
At the beginning of the data collection period, I randomly placed the participants
in two different groups. One group I responded to in general; that is to say I did not point

43

out specific errors in the student writing and if an error interfered with understanding, I
would just respond to the student that I did not understand what they meant and have
them try again in their next entry. The other group in the study was responded to using
recasts, in which I highlighted the writing error and then highlighted where I responded
with the correct form (hoping to encourage the noticing and realization of the errors). I
did mention to the class that the responses might look different from one journal to
another, as many times they shared their journals with each other and I didnt want them
to be alarmed if the response did or did not include highlighting. This difference in
responses did not bring up any issues within the class.
Analysis
First of all, to analyze the pre- and post-tests, I separated the answers into the type
of morpheme used and looked specifically at the pre-determined set of morphemes:
regular past tense, irregular past tense, present tense and regular plural. The number of
responses using these morphemes was recorded, along with the numbers of times they
were used correctly. This ratio (correct times used/total times used) was turned into a
percentage to determine the correct usage.
Finally, I looked at the student confidence/perspective in regard to their writing,
as Holmes and Moulton (1997) did in their study. To gain this perspective, I individually
questioned the students at the beginning of the study and again at the conclusion of the
study as to their attitudes and opinions toward the writing done in the journals (Holmes &
Moulton, 1997). This information was recorded under the number I had initially assigned
to each student to keep tests, comments and questionnaires confidential and organized.

44

Conclusion
This chapter has looked specifically, at the participants and the setting in which
the study took place. Additionally, it described the methods that were used to conduct
the study and the means for evaluating the results. In Chapter Four, those results will be
analyzed.

45

CHAPTER 4: RESULTS

Introduction
This research study looked at dialogue journaling among adult intermediate level
ESL students (as determined by a CASAS score of over 200) to see if it specifically
improved their writing in regard to four specific morphological areas. Additionally, it
looked at whether the specific type of response by the teacher to the student writer, with
or without recasts, bore any impact on the outcome. It is important to note, again, that
these activities were incorporated into our classroom curriculum. The entire class was
using journals, took the tests and was given the questionnaire; however, given that this is
an adult class without required attendance, while an estimate of more than 40 students
participated in the activities at some time or another, only the participants listed in Table
3.1 of Chapter 3 are included in the actual study. This chapter details the results of this
study. Pre- and post-tests that were given are discussed and results shared. The
questionnaires given are described and evaluated. Finally, results that emerged within the
journals are described.
Pre-Testing and Survey Questionnaire
Prior to analyzing the dialogue journals, I had the students take a pre-test
and together we filled out an informational questionnaire. The pre-test was specifically
geared to target the four morphological areas that I was looking at: regular past tense

46

verbs, irregular past tense verbs, present tense verbs and regular plural nouns. However,
the Pre-test (Appendix A) combines questions that ask the student to produce the specific
morphemes with writing prompts and also gives the student a chance to choose the
correct answer with a multiple choice section. So, this is a mixture of what the students
recognize as the correct forms and also what writing they are able to produce on their
own. These results serve as a starting point from which the students journal entries will
be compared. The results from the Pre-test are as follows in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Individual Scores for Use of Four Morphemes (Pre-test)
Fartun *

Camilo

Abdi*

Score/Percent

Jayne

Boon

Score/Percent

Score/Percent

Farhia

Lee

Score/Percent

Score/Percent

Morphemes
Regular Past
Tense

---

4/4

100%

---

6/6

100%

3/4

75%

3/7

43%

6/6

100%

Irregular
Past Tense

---

6/6

100%

---

5/5

100%

5/7

71.4%

2/5

40%

7/7

100%

Present
Tense

---

8/9

88.9%

---

7/10

70%

7/7

100%

7/12

Regular
Plural

---

8/8

100%

---

5/5

100%

4/6

67%

2/3

58.3%

67%

17/18

94%

8/12

67%

*Pre-test scores were not available for two students

This initial data that was collected showed interesting results. Basically, for
students Camilo and Jayne, both of whom had at least eleven years of previous schooling,
the percentage of correct usage for all the morphemes was extremely high (70-100%).
However, for Farhia, who had no formal education, the correct usage is significantly
lower (43-67%). This is not surprising when compared to the amount of schooling
experienced.

47

In addition to the pre-test, the students filled out a questionnaire entitled, Tell me
about your writing! (Appendix B) that included a portion for the student to fill out with
their opinions regarding their own writing skills. Due to low-literacy skills and time
constraints, I took the information verbally from some students and filled in the form for
them. The overwhelming theme that was prevalent after these were filled out was that
nothing is easy about writing, with grammar and spelling topping the list of the most
difficult aspects. Additionally, students tended to rate their writing skills very low with
few students feeling their skills rated over a 3 on a scale from 1 to 10. However, most
students did indicate that they were excited to dialogue journal, since they felt it would
improve their writing skills and serve as good practice. The background information that
was on the opposite side of this survey (Appendix C) was included in Table 3.1:
Participant Information in Chapter 3. A brief summary of the Tell me about your
writing questionnaire is provided here in Table 4.2.
Table 4.2 Tell me about your writing
How would you
rate your writing?
(0-nothing, 10
expert)
1

Do you like to
write?

What is easiest
about writing?

What is most
difficult?

Fartun

How do you feel

when I ask you to
write in your
journal?
hard

no

nothing

spelling

Lee

I like to write

yes

grammar

Farhia

yes

Abdi

I like to write
journal because I
am seem to get
better
ok

writing about
anything we want
short sentences

not really

[no answer]

spelling

Boon

feel good

yes

nothing easy about

writing

grammar

Jayne

nervous, but like

idea

no answer

yes

time to think

Camilo

good

yes

stories

trying to go too
fast and mixing
things up
Knowing right
words

long sentences

48

As can be seen, the students did not rate themselves very high in their perception of their
own writing skills, with only one person (Lee) rating himself as high as a five. Despite
the fact that the students felt they were poor writers, in general the students did not mind
writing. Lee responded, I like to write, and Camilo stated he felt good when asked to
journal. These responses encouraged me that dialogue journaling could be successful
with this group of learners. Most students thought grammar and spelling were the most
difficult issues to deal with. Boon stated, nothing easy about writing, and Fartun
shared that nothing was easiest about writing. Finally, the students consistently choose
spelling, grammar, long sentences and knowing right words as the most difficult
items associated with writing. This stayed consistent regardless of the students previous
schooling.
Dialogue Journaling Statistics and Graphs
As I have indicated earlier in the paper, this specific class of adult ESL learners had
been dialogue journaling since the beginning of the school year. Through reading and
responding to the journals regularly, I determined what morphemes to target. So, while it
was a part of our regular routine, it was not until the study started in March, 2008 that I
actually went in, analyzed the errors and tracked progress or lack of progress within the
journals. Additionally, up until March I was responding generally within the journals,
not highlighting errors or giving re-casts as feedback. However, in March I split the
students up randomly and began responding using recasts for a portion of the group and
continuing to use my general response with the other portion of the group. Some of the
examples of recasts that I used are as follows:

49

Student: Last week in St. Cloud we had snow storm hited Minnesota.
Recast: Yes, that snowstorm hit pretty hard, didnt it?
Student: [During break] I drive from St. Cloud . . . and take 35 South . . .
Recast: You drove from St. Cloud to Texas . . . and took 35 South . . . That is a
long drive!
Student: . . . we are a group of guys who has old jeeps.
Recast: So, a group of guys who have jeeps and like to play in the mud?!
The entries and recasts were highlighted just as above, to bring attention to the correction.
While this highlighting is not normally used with recasts, I decided to include it as a
means of assisting the students in noticing their errors; that is making a conscious
registration of the error, as mentioned in Chapter Two (Jourdenais, et al., 1995).
The following tables report the specific information on each individual student.
The instances recorded were the number of times the specific morpheme was used
correctly, and then that number of times is translated to a percentage of correct usage.
The information is broken down by month and also indicates whether the student was in
the recast group or the control group.
Table 4.3: Student results (Fartun)
Fartun
Control
Group

Total entries=8
March
Instances/Percent

Morpheme
Regular Past

0/0

Irregular Past

1/2

Regular
Present

10/10 100%

Regular Plural

50%

0/0

April
Instances /Percent

May
Instances /Percent

2/3

67%

0/1

0%

2/2

100%

4/5

80%

10/10 100%

8/9

89%

0/2

1/1

100%

0%

50

As can be seen, Fartun did not use the regular past tense morpheme or the regular plural
morpheme for all of March. Those two morphemes were scarcely used the remaining
two months, also. However, the regular present tense morpheme was used correctly,
regularly, throughout all three months.
Table 4.4: Student results (Camilo)
Camilo
Recast Group

March
Instances /Percent

Total entries=5
April
Instances /Percent

May
Instances /Percent

Morpheme
Regular Past

0/1

0%

1/1

100%

4/4

Irregular Past

1/1

100%

3/3

100%

20/20 100%

Regular
Present

11/12

92%

23/25

92%

14/14 100%

Regular Plural

4/5

80%

12/13

92%

10/11

100%

91%

Camilo is a student who had 12 years of schooling. All of his percentages were very high
(one exception was the regular past tense morphemes for the first month in which he was
0/1) from 80-100%. Camilo had also indicated that yes he liked to write and he was
very successful at it throughout the study.
Table 4.5: Student results (Abdi)
Abdi
Recast Group
Morpheme
Regular Past
Irregular Past

March
Instances /Percent
1/3

33%

5/5 100%

Regular
Present

11/11 100%

Regular Plural

2/2

100%

Total entries=9
April
Instances /Percent
1/2

50%

3/4

75%

13/13 100%
5/7

71%

May
Instances /Percent
1/3

33%

4/7 57%

9/10
2/2

90%
100%

51

Abdi, throughout the study, showed consistency in the regular present tense and the
regular plural areas. However, his percentage of correct usage for the irregular past tense
decreased with each month, and the regular past tense usage was inconsistent.
Table 4.6: Student results (Jayne)
Jayne
Control
Group

Total entries=7
March
Instances /Percent

April
Instances /Percent

May
Instances /Percent

Morpheme
Regular Past

0%

4/4

100%

1/1

100%

Irregular Past

0%

13/13 100%

4/4

100%

35/35 100%

18/20

0/3

7/7

Regular
Present

4/6

Regular Plural

67%
0%

0%

90%
100%

Jayne is a student who had eleven years of schooling, prior to coming to the United
States. Her percentages of correct usage are very high when she used the morphemes. In
March, however, she did not use three of the four morphemes being studied.
Table 4.7: Student results (Boon)
Boon
Recast Group

March
Instances /Percent

Total entries=8
April
Instances /Percent

Morpheme
Regular Past

2/8

25%

4/5

Irregular Past

7/15 47%

5/13

Regular
Present

5/7

Regular Plural

4/7

71%
57%

May
Instances /Percent

80%

0/0

38%

0/0

6/7

86%

3/3

100%

0/3

0%

1/4

25%

Boon is a student who indicated he liked to write, but had only six years of formal
schooling in Laos. While Boons percentage of correct usage increased each month for

52

the regular present tense morpheme, despite being part of the recast group and having his
errors highlighted and the responses recast for him, his percentage of correct usage for
the other morphemes was extremely erratic.
Table 4.8: Student results (Farhia)
Farhia
Control
Group

Total entries=7
March
Instances /Percent

Morpheme
Regular Past
Irregular Past
Regular
Present

0/0
2/3

67%

17/17 100%

Regular Plural

0/0

April
Instances /Percent

May
Instances /Percent

1/1

100%

11/11 100%

5/5

100%

6/7

86%

10/10 100%

18/19

95%

1/1

10/12

83%

100%

Farhia is a student with no formal schooling. She was very deliberate with her entries
and showed extreme persistence in writing. Her percentage of correct usage is high, with
little variation.
Table 4.9: Student results (Lee)
Lee
Recast Group
Morpheme
Regular Past

March
Instances /Percent
7/8

88%

Total entries=7
April
Instances /Percent

May
Instances /Percent

1/1

100%

15/15 100%

100%

12/13

Irregular Past

12/15 80%

3/3

92%

Regular
Present

2/3

67%

28/34

82%

17/20 85%

Regular Plural

0/2

0%

17/23

74%

13/18

72 %

53

As is shown, Lee was very consistent with his percentage of correct usage across all the
morphemes, with the slight exception of the regular plural, which was 0% the first month
and in the 70% range the subsequent months.
These results indicate several things. First of all, during the three months of the
target study, there was an average of seven journal entries per student. Next, it can be
seen that, possibly because the entries were student generated, with no given prompt,
not all of the morphemes were used. For example, Farhia did not use any regular past
tense or regular plural morphemes during her first month entries. Also, in general, there
seems to be no real pattern of improvement or decline, regardless of the instructor
response. Some performance improved; for example, Lees correct usage of regular
present tense morphemes grew from 67% correct in March, to 82% correct in April and
85% correct in May. Lee was part of the recast group. However, some performance
declined; for example, Boons use of regular plural morphemes fell from 57% correct
usage in March, to 0% correct usage in April and only 25% correct usage in May. Boon
was also part of the recast response group. Unfortunately, the results of the dialogue
entries showed no real pattern.
Upon completion of the dialogue journaling study, I then administered a final
post-test to again look at the students ability to create the targeted morphemes in specific
writing, and also to recognize the correct morpheme in context when given multiple
choices. The post-test is included in Appendix D. Those results are as follows in
Table 4.10.

54

Table 4.10: Post-test results

Fartun

Camilo

Abdi

Jayne

Boon

Farhia

Lee

Score/Percent

Score/Percent

Score/Percent

Score/Percent

Score/Percent

Score/Percent

Score/Percent

Regular Past
Tense

3/3

100%

3/3

100%

1/5

20%

6/6

100%

2/4

50%

3/7

43%

4/4

100%

Irregular
Past Tense

6/7

86%

4/7

57%

5/8

63%

5/5

100%

6/7

86%

2/5

40%

7/7

100%

Present
Tense

3/6

50%

11/13 85%

8/10

80%

9/10

90%

7/8

88%

8/12

67%

12/12 100%

Regular
Plural

5/5

100%

13/13 100%

4/5

80%

5/5

100%

2/8

25%

3/3

100%

Morphemes

6/6

With these numbers, it is now helpful to look for patterns or changes over time
within each individual student and also within each specific group (control responses and
recast responses). These findings are represented in the graphs that follow (Figures 4.14.8).
Figure 4.1: Control Group Regular Past Tense Verb
100
80
60

Fartun

40

Jayne

20

Farhia

0
Pretest March

April

May

Post
Test

For the control group with the regular past tense verb morpheme, the trends are
inconsistent. Jayne, who had eleven years of schooling in Turkey, scored high in 4 of the
5 measurements (in March she did not use the regular past tense morpheme in her

100%

55

writing). Farhia had a high percentage of correct usage on her journals (she, too, did not
use the specific morpheme in her writing in March), but scored much more poorly on her
pre-and post-tests. Farhias journal entries were always done outside of class, so this may
indicate that she received help, despite my request that they compose the journals
individually. Or, Farhia may just be a poor test taker. There is no way of knowing.
Finally, Fartun simply did not have enough input to determine a pattern.
Figure 4.2: Recast Group Regular Past Tense Verb
100
80
Camilo

60

Abdi

40

Boon

20

Lee

0
Pretest

March

April

May

Post Test

In this group, the recast group for the regular past tense verb morpheme, one trend seems
evident; Camilo and Lee, who each had at least eleven years of previous schooling scored
high consistently. Boon, with limited schooling, but 17+ years in the country was
inconsistent, and Abdi, with 12 years schooling in Somalia, but an attitude of not really
liking to write, scored consistently poorly.

56

Figure 4.3: Control Group Irregular Past Tense Verbs

100
80
60

Fartun

40

Jayne

20

Farhia

0
Pretest March

April

May

Post
Test

Here with the second morpheme, irregular past tense, the results for the control group are
similar to the first morpheme. Farhia scored better on the written journal entries than on
the test, Jayne was consistently high scoring and Fartun showed success overall, but not
consistent improvement.
Figure 4.4: Recast Group Irregular Past Tense Verbs

100
80
Camilo

60

Abdi

40

Boon
20

Lee

0
Pretest March

April

May

Post
Test

The recast group again did not have trends of improvement or decline, but consistent
results throughout the three month study.

57

Figure 4.5: Control Group - Present Tense Verbs

100
80
60

Fartun

40

Jayne

20

Farhia

0
Pretest March April

May

Post
Test

Here, the control group showed no real pattern. Fartuns percentage of correct usage
went down in the last month and then even lower on the post-test. Jayne was much less
consistent with this morpheme and Farhia again showed lower results on the tests.
Figure 4.6: Recast Group Present Tense Verbs
100
80
60

Camilo

40

Abdi
Boon

20

Lee

0
Pretest March

April

May

Post
Test

The recast group in this morphological area showed high correct percentages results, but
no real pattern of improvement or decline.

58

Figure 4.7: Control Group Regular Plural

100
80
60

Fartun

40

Jayne
Farhia

20
0
Pretest March

April

May

Post
Test

Because of the lack of consistent usage in this morphological area (neither Jayne nor
Fartun used the regular plural morpheme during the first two months of the journaling) it
is difficult to determine if strides toward improvement were made. The correct usage in
May and on the post-test was significant, but there was really nothing to compare it to
from the first two months.
Figure 4.8: Recast Group Regular Plural

100
80
60

Camilo
Abdi

40

Boon
20

Lee

0
Pretest March

April

May

Post
Test

In the regular plural morpheme, Boon unfortunately decreased in his percentage of

correct usage. Camilo, Abdi and Lee all stayed fairly consistent in this area.

59

Given this information, there are some conclusions that can be drawn. First of all,
the type of response provided by the teacher (regular or recasts) did not seem to make a
difference in the students ability to produce the given morphemes. Secondly, there
seems to be no set pattern overall for improvement for any of the morphemes. In fact,
Abdis percentage of correct usage actually decreased over the course of the journal
entries. This randomness in correct usage could be seen as simple individual variation in
the acquisition process (Peyton, 1991). The individual variation is quite important for
teachers to keep in mind as they look for student growth.
Of course there could be many reasons for this lack of clear improvement. For
one, the scope of this study was a very limited time frame three months of actual
entries, and limited number of participants. As was mentioned earlier, 30 40 students
participated in the journal writing throughout the course of the study, but only the seven
students reported on seemed consistent enough in their entries to warrant being included
in the study.
Despite the lack of improvement in the given morphological areas, there was
success that cannot be statistically measured. After the journaling, the students were
asked the bottom questions from the Tell me about your writing! Questionnaire
(Appendix B). The overall response was that the students really liked writing in the
journals because they felt good being able to talk to me about things they normally would
not in class. Also, they felt that their writing was improving. They felt much more
confident in their ability to convey messages via writing and liked when I corrected their

60

errors. Some of the comments from the questionnaire following the journal writing were
as follows:

I like to read what you wrote back to me and to see how to fix mistakes. (Lee,
eleven years previous schooling, recast group)

I am going to keep my journal so I can remember how much my writing got

better. (Jayne, 11 years previous schooling, control group)

Thank you for answer[ing] my questions. (Boon, six years schooling, recast
group)

I not so nervous to write now. (Fartun, elementary previous schooling, control

group)

So, overall, the journal writing was a success! The students felt more confident and
confidence is a big step in literacy.
Conclusion
In this chapter, I looked at the results of the pre-test, the three months of journal
entries and the post-test. Within these results, it seemed that the nature of responding to
the journals (recasts or not) did not seem to make a difference in student success.
Additionally, due to the nature of the journals, not all morphemes being studied were
used within each period. Therefore, progress in those areas was hard to determine since
there was data missing. Finally, the data showed that there was not a clear improvement
in the correct usage of the targeted morphemes over the course of the study period.
However, through student comments, it is clear that the dialogue journaling was a success
overall in that it improved confidence levels of the students and created a dynamic

61

dialogue between student and instructor. This overall success will be shared in the next
chapter, Chapter Five, along with the information gained in this research, the limitations
and suggestions for the future.

62

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION

In the previous chapter I presented the data I obtained while doing my study. In
this chapter I will share what I learned in response to my initial research questions and
what limitations I faced in doing the research. Additionally, I will look at the bonus
findings, what suggestions I have for future research in this area, and various suggestions
for other teachers who have adult English language learners in their classroom.
Impressions
In this research project, I wanted to see if using dialogue journals in the classroom
would have a positive effect on the writing accuracy of intermediate level ESL adult
students, including those non-formally educated and with low-literacy skills.
Additionally, I wanted to determine if recasts in the instructor response would impact the
accuracy of the targeted morphemes. I chose the targeted morphemes (regular past tense
verbs, irregular past tense verbs, regular present tense verbs and regular plural nouns)
based on looking at the writing the students had done prior to the start of the study.
These were all areas where numerous mistakes were made.
In a previous, similar study, Joy Peyton had found quantifiable growth in her
students correct use of specific morphemes (1990a). Peyton was, however, looking at

63

much younger students (sixth grade), having the students write daily in their journals, and
continuing the study for a 10-month period. All these were major differences from my
study. And, unfortunately, with the data I received, there was no clear improvement in
the given morphemes. It seemed that those who did better initially continued to do well,
and those who struggled more, continued to struggle.
In addition, the method of response I used, be it regular responses or using
recasts, did not seem to impact the measure of improvement, either. This was less
surprising to me, as there is much debate on whether recasts are beneficial and effective
in showing learners their mistakes (Long & Robinson, 1998) or if recasts are unclear and
might be looked at as a conversational reply (Lyster, 1998). In the three months that I
used recasts in my dialogue journal replies, I can safely say that the students preferred the
recasts. They liked seeing their mistakes and the correct forms. They liked to know
when they had made a mistake. The responses were positive from both groups, but the
recast group made more references to fixing their mistakes and answer[ing] their
questions. However, this form of response did not seem to make a difference in any
measurable success for the three month study period.
That being said, it stands to reason that there were many limitations within this
study; some were foreseen, others were not. In the next section I will go into those
limitations.
Limitations of the Study
One of the reasons I wanted to do this study was because it seems there is very
little research out there on this particular group of learners, that is, low-literacy adult

64

learners. All of the research I came across and reported on in my Review of Literature,
focused on elementary students or adult university students (Holmes & Moulton, 1997;
Peyton & Seyoum, 1988; Peyton, 1990a). My students do not fit these models.
However, the very focus on this population became a limitation in itself. My students
work hard, in class and in life. Most work full-time in addition to coming to class and
most have a family. Expecting them to have time to write regularly in their journal
turned out to be unrealistic. The students certainly tried, but the length of most entries
was too short to get a statistical indication of improvement. We did take time to write
during class, but with only a two or two and a half hour class, two days a week, there just
is not enough time to dedicate the amount of time necessary to see adequate
improvement.
Another aspect of the time limitation was the length of the study itself. Three
months, as I discovered, is simply not enough time to gauge statistical improvements.
The studies I looked at previous to starting my study had time lengths of ten months
(Peyton, 1990a), seven months (Peyton & Seyoum, 1988), and the shortest was 15-weeks
(Holmes & Moulton, 1997). All of these are longer than my 12-week time frame.
Unfortunately, because of students coming and going, moving, starting new jobs or other
family obligations, a longer study length probably would not be feasible to expect.
Another limitation could be seen as the ability for the instructor to respond to the
journal entries in an appropriate time frame. Having up to 30 students using the journals
at the same time put incredible stress on me. Fortunately, I was able to continually get
the journals back to the students right away, but they needed to leave them with me one

65

afternoon or evening and then would have it returned to them the next class period. In a
perfect world, they would have the journals with them all the time.
One more limitation would be the hesitation of those students who were very,
very low-literacy. Despite my encouragement, they were very hesitant to write anything.
Once they understood they could just write a few words or write how things sounded they
were better about it, but to get to that point was very difficult. However, even with these
significant limitations, there were many positive findings that werent measurable.
Positive Outcomes
First of all, the students reported they loved writing in the journals. It increased
their confidence, and many asked if they could keep their journals when I was done with
them, to look back on how they felt their writing improved. At first they were hesitant
because they were afraid to make mistakes, but they then discovered what a wonderful
tool it was in communicating with me and they felt very proud.
In addition to the students loving the journals, as the responder, I did, too. I really
looked forward to their entries and felt very appreciated when I was able to ask them in
class about something they had mentioned in their journal. Also, students felt able to ask
me things that they probably wouldnt have in front of their peers. This created a
wonderful community and basically fulfilled every benefit mentioned in my review of
literature in Chapter Two. First, the students did use the journals as less academic and
more of a reflection on their lives, as Kim (2005) suggested. This created more of a
community within a classroom and I got to know the students significantly better.
Secondly, Jones (1991a) proposed that positive changes could be made in the students

66

attitude toward writing; this certainly was the case. Many of the students really enjoyed
writing in the journals and as mentioned in Chapter 4, made statements such as, I not so
nervous to write now, and I like to read what you wrote back to me and to see how to
fix mistakes. Clearly, the attitude changed from the pre-study questionnaire when
students stated, nothing [is easy about writing] and writing in the journals was hard.
Several other benefits were also found. Discussing and solving problems, as
Jones (1991a) offered as another benefit, was seen in that students wrote questions about
applying for a new job and a problem with a neighbor. Additionally, individualized
language and content learning, as suggested by Peyton and Reed (1990), was found in the
time spent in class when all students could participate in the journal writing, even lowliteracy students who could simply write the few words they knew. Gaining information
for future lesson planning, which Peyton and Reed (1990) also mentioned, was very
useful for me. The journals gave me specific grammatical areas to target and also the
knowledge of specific content areas that would be beneficial to the students. The students
were fortunate to use writing for genuine communication (Peyton & Reed, 1990), and
also had the additional opportunity for reading (Peyton & Reed, 1990; Jones, 1991a).
Everything except the actual proof of improvement in writing in the morphemes I was
specifically looking at was found in this study.
Additionally, I was so pleased with the community building aspect of the journals
that I decided to use them in my mainstream English classroom. I teach Language/Arts
to 10th graders and have implemented the dialogue journals into their curriculum as well.
I have gotten many positive responses, especially focusing on how well it worked for us

67

to get to know each other. I truly believe I will keep dialogue journaling in both my
mainstream and my ESL curriculum in the future.
Implications for Further Research
With these positive outcomes related to the dialogue journaling, I do believe
further research should be done in this area. However, if dealing with this set of
participants (adult learners) I believe the study should be funded, so that the student
participants could be paid for their time (outside of class) and therefore possibly be more
diligent in their participation. Most of these students already work and have a family so a
small stipend could justify the time spent on their journals a bit more. And, if additional
time outside of class, even for a small stipend, is not realistic, maybe something as simple
as a small gift card at the end of the study might be more realistic.
The study also should be done in a setting that meets more regularly. Two times
per week was not enough to get the results I truly believe are possible. In addition, the
study could be done in a setting that requires mandatory attendance. A time frame of
longer than three months would also surely be beneficial. An idea would be to start right
away in the school year and continue throughout the entire year. This coupled with a
stipend might create the consistency needed to show results.
Some other areas related to dialogue journaling that could be explored might be if
classroom targeted lessons in the specific grammatical morpheme areas focused on, in
addition to the journaling, harbor positive literacy outcomes. A look at spelling
improvement, length of entries or just different grammatical morphemes, would all be
additional areas that could be looked at. Another area that would be very interesting to

68

explore would be the area of feedback. What if the instructor could actually meet with
the student and go over the recasts verbally, or give the student a chance to specifically
practice that morpheme? If an instructor had access to a volunteer, that could be an
avenue worth exploring. Or to look more in depth at noticing and determine if that
indeed helps a student improve writing skills. There really is a plethora of areas with
dialogue journaling that need to be explored with this population.
Final Thoughts
This whole process has been a real learning experience. The research
methodology has made me more aware of the activities I choose to do with my students
in the classroom. It has caused me to question the measurability of expected results and
also to appreciate the importance of follow through. Since doing the study I am very
much aware of the grammatical morphemes the students use in their writing, and often
wonder if the results would have been different if I had chosen different morphemes to
examine. Additionally, this study has made me more intentional about the feedback I
give students. I use verbal recasts a lot and hope I am choosing the most beneficial form
of feedback.
I am very pleased with the results of this study even though they did not turn out
the way I expected them to. I definitely formed a very solid relationship with the
students who participated in the study. They trusted me enough to put the time and
energy into their writing, they shared personal details that would not have come out in the
general classroom context, and truly looked forward to my responses and suggestions. I
appreciate and value that experience. Despite the lack of measurable progress in the

69

grammatical morphemes examined, I hope that adult educators everywhere can look at
this study and consider the immeasurable benefits of using dialogue journaling within
their classroom, too.

APPENDIX A
Pre-test

71

Pre-test

1. Tell me what you did last weekend.

2. Tell me what your husband/wife/friend does during the day.

3. Describe your neighborhood.

72

Circle the correct answer.

1. Yesterday I ________________ my house.

a. clean
b. cleaned
c. cleans

2. I ____________________ a used car last year.

a. buy
b. buyed
c. bought

3. Right now, my daughter __________________ to school every day.

a. goes
b. go
c. went

4. My three __________________ love to play at the park.

a. daughter
b. child
c. daughters
5. Last week I ___________________ on vacation with my husband.
a. went
b. going
c. goed
6. My daughter usually _______________ dinner for us.
a. cook
b. cooked
c. cooks

73

7. After class yesterday, I _____________ on the ice outside.

a. slip
b. slipped
c. slips

8. The teacher has 10 _____________ in her class today.

a. students
b. student
c. man
9. The driver _________________ right at the stop sign.
a. turn
b. turning
c. turned
10. The student _____________ right through her alarm this morning.
a. sleep
b. slept
c. sleeped
11. Every day the mail carrier ____________ my mail.
a. delivers
b. deliver
c. delivered
12. The farmer has 750 ________ on his farm.
a. cow
b. animal
c. cows

74

Please finish the sentence:

1. Every Monday _______________________________________________.

2. On the weekend, I usually ______________________________________.

3. Yesterday, I _________________________________________________.

4. There are ___________________________ in my neighborhood.

5. At the grocery store, I usually buy ________________________________.

APPENDIX B
Tell me about your writing Questionnaire

76

Tell Me About Your Writing!

1.

How do you feel when I ask you to write something in your journal?

2.

If 0 is not knowing how to write and 10 is perfect writing, how would you
rate your writing?

3.

Do you like to write?

4.

What is easiest about writing?

5.

What is most difficult?

To be filled out only after dialogue journaling starts:

6.

Do you like writing in the dialogue journals? Why or why not?

7.

Do you think your writing is getting better?

8.

What did I do that helped you to write better?

APPENDIX C
Background Information Questionnaire

78

Background Information:
How long have you lived in the United States?

How long did you attend school in your native country?

Do you write in your native language? If so, what do you write?

Did you receive any degrees?

Did you study English before coming to the United States? If so, how long?

How long have you been attending ESL classes?

To be filled out by instructor:

CASAS Score ______________ Date tested__________________

APPENDIX D
Post-test

80

Post-test

1. Tell me what you did during you last vacation from work or school.

2. Tell me what your partner does on the weekends.

3. Please describe your classroom.

81

Circle the correct answer.

1. Yesterday, I _______________ my car.
a. wash
b. washing
c. washed
2. Last night I __________________ a new bike.
a. bought
b. buyed
c. buy

3. Many students __________rice every day.

a. eat
b. eats
c. eating

4. I have three __________ at home.

a. apple
b. apples
c. fruit
5. My sister ____________ new shoes every month.
a. buy
b. buys
c. bought
6. Last week I _____________grocery shopping at Cub.
a. goed
b. going
c. went

82

7. We saw a lot of _______________ at the zoo.

a. animal
b. animals
c. lion

8. This morning I _______________ to the radio on the way to school.

a. listening
b. listens
c. listened
9. My daughters _____________ some cookies this afternoon.
a. baked
b. bake
c. baking
10. John __________ late because he worked hard yesterday.
a. slept
b. sleep
c. sleeped
11. The girl _____________ the piano very nicely.
a. play
b. playing
c. plays
12. We have 2 ___________ in our garage.
a. car
b. cars
c. truck

83

Please finish the sentence:

1. Last week our class _______________ about _____________________.

2. When I get home, I usually ______________________________________.

3. My family likes to ___________________________________ on the

weekend.

4. Last year I ______________________________________________.

5. During the break from class, my classmates ______________________.

84

REFERENCES

Abdi, A. (1998). Education in Somalia: History, destruction, and class for

reconstruction. Comparative Education, 34 (3), 327-340.
Auerbach, E. R. (1986). Competency-based ESL: One step forward or two
steps back? [Electronic version]. TESOL Quarterly, 20 (3), 411-429.
Auerbach, E. R. (1999). The power of writing, the writing of power: Approaches
to adult ESOL writing instruction. Focus on Basics 3 (D). Retrieved August 15,
2007, from http://www.ncsall.net/?id+341
Bartholet, J. (1992). Saying a poem for peace. Newsweek, 120 (19), 40.
Bitchener, J., Young, S., & Cameron, D. (2005). The effect of different types of
corrective feedback on ESL student writing. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 14, 191-205.
Brown, J. D., & Rodgers, T. (2002). Doing Second Language Research. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Center for Adult English Language Acquisition. (2005). ESL Resource FAQs.
Retrieved June 27, 2008, from
http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/faqs.html#Two
DiCerbo, P.A., (2006). Resources about adult English language learners.
National Clearinghouse for English Language Acquisition (NCELA). Retrieved
June 27, 2008, from http://www.ncela.gwa.edu/resabout/adult/intro
Ellis, R. (2001). Introduction: Investigating form-focused instruction. Language
Learning, 51 (Supplement 1), 1-46.
Farid, M. & McMahon, D. (2004). Accommodating and educating Somali
students in Minnesota schools. St. Paul, MN: Hamline University Press.
Han, Z. (2002). A study of the impact of recasts on tense consistency in L2
output. TESOL Quarterly, 36 (4), 543-572.

Holmes, V. L. & Moulton, M.R. (1997). Dialogue journals as an ESL learning

strategy. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40 (8), 616-621.
Retrieved March 17, 2007, from Academic Search Premier database.
Jourdenais, R., Mitsuhiko, O., Stauffer, S., Boyson, B. & Doughty, C. (1995). Does
textual enhancement promote noticing? A think-aloud protocol analysis. In R.
Schmidt (Ed.), Attention and awareness in foreign language learning (pp. 183216). Manoa, HI: University of Hawaii Press.
Jones, P. (1991a). The various benefits of dialogue journals. In J. K. Peyton & J. Staton
(Eds.), Writing our lives: Reflections on dialogue journal writing with adults
learning English (pp. 102-126). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Jones, P. (1991b). What are dialogue journals? In J. K. Peyton & J. Staton
(Eds.), Writing our lives: Reflections on dialogue journal writing with adults
learning English (pp. 3-23). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Kim, J. (2005). A community within the classroom: Dialogue journal writing of
adult ESL learners. Adult Basic Education, 15 (1), 21-32.
Kreeft, J. (1984). Dialogue writing: Bridge from talk to essay writing. Language
Arts, 61 (2), 141-150.
Laufer, B. (2006). Comparing focus on form and focus on forms in secondlanguage vocabulary learning [Electronic version]. The Canadian Modern
Language Review, 63 (1), 149-166.
Lightbown, P. & Spada, N. (1999). How Languages are Learned. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Loewen, S. & Philp, J. (2006). Recasts in the adult English L2 classroom:
Characteristics, explicitness, and effectiveness. The Modern Language Journal,
90 (iv), 536-556.
Long, M., & Robinson, P. (1998). Focus on form: Theory, research, and
practice. In C. Doughty & J. Williams (Eds.), Focus on form in classroom second
language acquisition (pp. 15-41). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Lyster, R. (1998). Negotiation of form, recasts, and explicit correction in relation
to error types and learner repair in immersion classrooms. Language Learning,
48, 183-218.

86

Morse, A. (2004). A quick look at U.S. immigrants: Demographics, workforce,

and asset-building. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures.
Retrived June 27, 2008 from http://www.ncsl.org/programs/immig
Nicholas, H., Lightbown, P., & Spada, N. (2001). Recasts as feedback to
language learners. Language Learning 51 (4), 719-758.
Oxford, R. L. (1990). Language learning strategies: What every teacher should
know. Boston, MA: Heinle & Heinle Publishers.
Parrish, B. (2004). Teaching adult ESL: A practical introduction. New York:
McGraw Hill College.
Peyton, J. K. (2000). Dialogue journals: Interactive writing to develop language
and literacy. National Center for ESL Literacy Education. Retrieved July 18,
2007 from http://www.cal.org/caela/esl_resources/digests/Dialogue_Journals.html
Peyton, J. K. (1990a). Dialogue journal writing and the acquisition of English
grammatical morphology. In J. K. Peyton (Ed.), Students and teachers writing
together: Prospectives on journal writing (pp. 65-97). Alexandria, VA: Teachers
of English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
Peyton, J. K. (Ed.). (1990b). Students and teachers writing together:
Perspectives on journal writing. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
Peyton, J. K. (1991). Settling some basic issues. In J. K. Peyton & J. Staton
(Eds.), Writing our lives: Reflections on dialogue journal writing with adults
learning English (pp. 11-23). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall Regents.
Peyton, J. K. & Reed, L. (Eds.). (1990). Dialogue journal writing with nonnative
English speakers: A handbook for teachers. Alexandria, VA: Teachers of
English to Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
Peyton, J. K. & Seyoum, M. (1988). The effect of teacher strategies on
students interactive writing: The case of dialogue journals. (Report no. FL 017
553). Los Angeles, CA: University of California. Center for Language Education
and Research. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 298 763)
Putman, D. B. & Noor, M. C. (1993). The Somalis: Their history and culture.
Baltimore, MD: Center for Applied Linguistics, U. S. Department of State,
Refugee Service Center.

87

Rvsz, A. & Han, Z. (2006). Task content familiarity, task type and efficacy of
Recasts. Language Awareness, 15 (3), 160-179.
Schmidt, R. (1990). The role of consciousness in second language learning. Applied
Linguistics, 11(2), 129-158.
Sheen, Y. (2007). The effect of focused written corrective feedback and
language aptitude on ESL learners acquisition of articles. TESOL Quarterly, 41
(2), 255-283.
Spada, N. & Lightbown, P. (2008). Form-focused instruction: Isolated or
integrated? TESOL Quarterly, 42 (2), 181-207.
Staton, J., Shuy, R., Peyton, J., & Reed, L. (1988). Dialogue journal communication:
Classroom, linguistic, social and cognitive views. Norwood, NJ: Ablex
Publishing Corporation.
Vanett, L. & Jurich, D. (1990). The missing link: Connecting journal writing to
academic writing. In J. K. Peyton (Ed.), Students and teachers writing together:
Perspectives on journal writing (21-33). Alexandria, VA: Teachers of English to
Speakers of Other Languages, Inc.
Wertsch, J. V. & Sohmer, R., (1995). Vygotsky on learning and development
[Electronic version]. Human Development, 38 (6), 332-337.